start on SIMD documentation

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 1/13/12 5:06 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
> On 13/01/12 10:31 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 1/13/12 2:41 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 1/13/2012 12:27 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
>>>> On 13/01/12 8:02 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
>>>>> Er... is there any reason why we're using such a cryptic PXOR value
>>>>> instead of operator overloading?
>>>>
>>>> I imagine Walter will add the operator overloads later.
>>>
>>> Right. simd() is just the bottom layer building block. It's a compiler
>>> intrinsic, and I don't want to make every overload a compiler intrinsic.
>>
>> People will want to pass a variable for op. Would that work?
>
> Why would people want to do that?
>
> Also, no, it can't possibly work. It just makes no sense.
>

My point exactly. The chosen syntax must be fixed.

Andrei